> In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:14:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> panderso@... writes:
>
> << For whatever
> reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
> redactions of Mark >>
>
> "For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this ought
> to make one suspect that Matt and Lk were written before Mark,

But then why write Mark at all, if Matt. and Lk. were already in
existence? It seems easier to see them as an expansion of Mark than to
see Mark as an abbreviation of traditions that had already been solidified
into written form. Notice also the places where Matt. and Luke smooth out
some awkward Markan phrases, either to improve awkward grammar or clarify
meaning. Surely this would not have been necessary if Mark had access to
Matt. or Lk.?
Elizabeth Danna

<< "For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this
ought

> to make one suspect that Matt and Lk were written before Mark,

But then why write Mark at all, if Matt. and Lk. were already in
existence? It seems easier to see them as an expansion of Mark than to
see Mark as an abbreviation of traditions that had already been solidified
into written form. Notice also the places where Matt. and Luke smooth out
some awkward Markan phrases, either to improve awkward grammar or clarify
meaning. Surely this would not have been necessary if Mark had access to
Matt. or Lk.? >>

Dear Elizabeth,

This, of course, raises the whole question of the Synoptic Problem. Though
I am never adverse to reviewing the evidence for solutions to this problem
with anyone, and from the ground up, I suspect that this is not the proper
forum for such an exhilarating exercise. I perhaps should not have raised the
question in the first place, but if you or anyone else wishes to discuss it
with me off-list, I should be delighted to oblige (to the extent that this is
compatible with my teaching schedule and responsibilities). It goes without
saying that my remark to which you are responding should be taken to imply
that, having carefully considered all the standard arguments in favor of
Markan priority, I consider them to be less compelling than arguments for the
contrary position.

Leonard Maluf

Paul Anderson

... I don t imagine we ll fix these differences between our perspectives in this discussion group (nor would it be appropriate to attempt), but as you know,

>It goes without
>saying that my remark to which you are responding should be taken to
>imply
>that, having carefully considered all the standard arguments in favor of
>Markan priority, I consider them to be less compelling than arguments for
>the
>contrary position.
>
>Leonard Maluf

I don't imagine we'll fix these differences between our perspectives in
this discussion group (nor would it be appropriate to attempt), but as you
know, such is a major factor in our disagreement, Leonard.

><< For whatever
> reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
> redactions of Mark >>
>
>"For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this

Not so fast, Leonard, I actually think there were good reasons, or at
least explicable ones. This is an attempt to be generous beyond
particular explanations which I outline in my book. If you get a chance
to engage chapters 5-10 in my book and appendix 8, I'd appreciate your
response.

> reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
> redactions of Mark >>
>
>"For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this

Not so fast, Leonard, I actually think there were good reasons, or at
least explicable ones. This is an attempt to be generous beyond
particular explanations which I outline in my book. If you get a chance
to engage chapters 5-10 in my book and appendix 8, I'd appreciate your
response.>>

I guess I would put what I am trying to say this way. What most consider to
be major theological/literary influences of the synoptic tradition on John
(so I am not thinking here of things like number of denarii or cost of
ointment) are usually thought to be derived by John from Mark, or "Markan
tradition". The ONLY reason the connection is made to Mark, in these cases,
rather than to Matt, is because of the theory of Markan priority. In other
words, the particular influences so identified could, I think, usually be
demonstrated, from a synchronic perspective (i.e., without reference to a
diachronic source theory), to be in fact more characteristic of Matthew than
of Mark or Luke. To test the validity of my point, perhaps you would be so
kind as to begin the process by naming one or two things you would consider
to be major theological influences of the Synoptic tradition on John, and
then I would have to demonstrate, if I could, that the point in question is
in fact more Matthean than Markan, in terms of synchronic analysis of the two
Evangelists' respective texts.

Leonard Maluf

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.